Transposition Musique et Sciences Sociales 8 | 2019 Musique : patrimoine immatériel ? Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage? Elsa Broclain, Benoît Haug and Pénélope Patrix Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/transposition/4201 DOI: 10.4000/transposition.4201 ISSN: 2110-6134 Publisher CRAL - Centre de recherche sur les arts et le langage Electronic reference Elsa Broclain, Benoît Haug and Pénélope Patrix, « Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage? », Transposition [Online], 8 | 2019, Online since 15 October 2019, connection on 16 December 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/transposition/4201 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/transposition.4201 This text was automatically generated on 16 December 2020. La revue Transposition est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
PublisherCRAL - Centre de recherche sur les arts et le langage
Electronic referenceElsa Broclain, Benoît Haug and Pénélope Patrix, « Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage? », Transposition [Online], 8 | 2019, Online since 15 October 2019, connection on 16 December 2020. URL :http://journals.openedition.org/transposition/4201 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/transposition.4201
This text was automatically generated on 16 December 2020.
La revue Transposition est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative CommonsAttribution - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.
Introduction. Music: IntangibleHeritage?Elsa Broclain, Benoît Haug and Pénélope Patrix
1 Nearly two thirds of the elements inscribed on the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage
(ICH) lists in 2018 include a significant musical component.1 Traditions such as lkhon
khol, a religious ritual combining dance, music and masks from the community around
the Wat Svay Andet Buddhist monastery in Cambodia; as-samer, a singing and dancing
practice from Jordan; singing to the accompaniment of the gusle from Serbia; and
reggae music from Jamaica, are now listed alongside Greek rebetiko; the sega tambour of
Rodrigues Island (both inscribed in 2017); tango of the Rio de la Plata region; the fest-
noz festive gathering of Brittany; and the tar craftsmanship and performance art in
Azerbaijan, to name but a few. In all, on these lists one finds more than 300 practices2 in
which music plays an important part, most of which also involve forms of celebration,
dances, rituals, poetry or know-how.3 Indeed, it appears that music holds a key place in
the “intangible cultural heritage” of humanity, as inventoried by UNESCO since its
2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage4 (hereinafter
referred to as the Convention).
Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage?
Transposition, 8 | 2019
1
Ill. 1: Global distribution of ICH elements and the relative proportion of music (click on “Original” to expand)5
2 Does this imply that music is particularly compatible with the concept of “intangible
heritage”, demonstrating a predisposition to the heritage model put forward by
UNESCO? Does music lend itself more easily to the mechanisms of heritagisation than
other cultural phenomena? Or does this device merely reflect the pervasiveness of
music among social practices around the world? In any case, this observation of the
preponderance of music in ICH calls for an examination of ways in which it is defined
and perceived in this context, and of the theoretical and historical presuppositions at
play. In this regard, although the notion of “intangibility” is above all an institutional
and practical distinction,6 it echoes the romantic Western tradition, continuing to the
present day, of considering music the most “spiritual” of all art forms.7 “Intangible
cultural heritage” is often presented by UNESCO experts and representatives as a
“patrimonial turn”, aiming to redress “North-South” imbalance in terms of different
conceptions of culture and the elements inscribed worldwide8; but might this new
category paradoxically reiterate the dominant Western aesthetic paradigm? Does
classifying a form of music as “intangible heritage” subjugate it to a situated symbolic
system, whereas other traditions, in the West and elsewhere, focus rather on music’s
rootedness in the human body, in places, instruments and objects?9 Let us bear in mind,
however, that when UNESCO grants music a certain distinction among the “performing
arts” within ICH, it is a matter of its supposed universality rather than because of its
intangibility10: intangible heritage, yes, but also and most importantly, heritage of
humanity.
3 This prevalence of music in the field of ICH raises the question: what does music do to
ICH? Due to characteristics considered specific to it, does music prompt a rethinking of
the definitions of and ways of making heritage? Does it play a particular role in the
“new heritage”11 and the reorientations introduced by UNESCO in the aim of promoting
Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage?
Transposition, 8 | 2019
2
living practices and their practitioners, rather than artefacts?12 How does music
challenge or reframe this new category, “intangible cultural heritage”?
4 Conversely—and this is the initial assumption the present issue seeks to explore—this
new regime of “intangible heritage” seems to have become the dominant paradigm in
processes of heritagisation and recognition of musical practices at the international
level. Since the ratification of the Convention by UNESCO Member States and its entry
into force in 2006, ICH nomination files have flooded in. Indeed, inscription on the
UNESCO lists has become a new prospect in the “game of heritagisation” (course à la
patrimonialisation)13 and a key stake in the recognition of musical and, more broadly,
cultural practices around the world. This assumption calls for a world history of
musical heritagisation, with a particular interest in the part played by the UNESCO
Convention and the new order it has established in the heritage field internationally in
this landscape. That is, it also raises the question: what does ICH do to music? How is this
paradigm affecting musical practices, denominations and theories, as well as the
diversity of music conservation, recognition and safeguarding devices?
5 Of course, the assumption that ICH dominates the field of musical heritagisation does
not necessarily imply it has eradicated previously-existing and alternative formulas:
classification and action categories such as “traditional music”, “regional music”,
“oral music”, “popular music” and “folk music” continue to exist in associations,
festivals, libraries, museums, archives, and local, regional and national inventories
around the world. It must be said, however—as shown by the articles assembled in this
issue—that since being imposed by UNESCO,14 the category of “intangible cultural
heritage” has infiltrated musical domains (professional or amateur, local or
transnational) far beyond the United Nations’ scope of action. It has, if not invaded, at
least been embraced by museums, festivals and municipalities, adding itself to, if not
outright replacing, the current denominations. The safeguarding measures prescribed
by the Convention as an international instrument (community consultation and
involvement, emphasis on living practices and their practitioners, setting up
inventories, and creating archives, scientific studies, museums or other competent
organisations) and the values it promotes (universality, equality, respect for human
rights and peace, along with celebration of cultural diversity and recognition of
minorities15) have become prescriptive in musical heritagisation practices and local
cultural policies, imposing this new heritage paradigm as a worldwide standard16—to
the point of exasperating some, who question this new category,17 criticise it or attempt
to work around it.
6 The assumption that ICH is now one of the main forces driving music heritagisation at
the global level urges examination of this phenomenon. Indeed, it raises pressing
questions of serious consequence, deserving investigation across the broad spectrum of
human and social sciences. Countless practices around the world are concerned by
these issues and currently traversed by debates, conflict and attempts at redefinition
and resolution in relation to these questions around heritage. This is why it is so
important to critically examine this new order and how it is perceived, not only by the
musicians and communities concerned, but also by a wide range of actors and
institutions in these fields.
Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage?
Transposition, 8 | 2019
3
Musical heritagisations in the age of ICH: a literaturereview
7 How have these questions been addressed thus far? Before delving into the specific
domain of ICH, it is first important to note the instability of the scope, and even the
definition, of “intangible cultural heritage” per se—between researchers, heritage
professionals (curators, restorers, museologists, mediators), and musicians and other
actors in the music scenes. This instability is maintained by one of the main
disjunctures in the field today: the “disconnect” between, on the one hand, the
heritagisation of music by conserving its artefacts (instruments, notations, recordings),
which are considered the witnesses of its history and the depositories of its “works”;
and on the other hand, heritagisation by supporting and revitalising the creation
processes, knowledge, skills and social dynamics specific to the practices, particularly
applied to so-called traditional, oral, folk and world music. 18 The first, originating in
Western tradition, is implemented by conservation institutions (museums, archives and
libraries); the second stems from the “new museologies” and is further extended in the
“new heritage” promoted by the UNESCO ICH framework.
8 This provides key historical perspective, allowing us to replace ICH at the end of a line
of conservation and safeguarding processes tracing back at least to the nineteenth
century. In this sense, the numerous historical studies on compilations of popular
poetry, inventories, museums of music,19 collections of scores and recordings 20 and,
more broadly, on musical archives—between romantic folklore, national constructions
and emerging sciences21—play a de facto part in the history of musical heritagisation.
Yet this sweeping statement—inclusive, to say the least—must be counterbalanced with
a nominalist approach: applying the idea of “cultural heritage” to music did not occur
until late in the twentieth century, and for some time did not extend to anything more
than physical media (notated, discographic, organological, etc.), whereas the neologism
“heritagisation” did not appear until the early twenty-first century. This reserve in no
way invalidates the historical framing of musical heritagisations, as long as we do not
completely lose sight of the unique characteristics of today’s landscape and its specific
vocabulary around heritage, the marker of its historicity.
9 In 2013, ethnomusicologist Luc Charles-Dominique explored these issues through an
original work on the anthropology of the heritagisation of music and art,22 combining a
re-examination of the institutional history of heritagisations in France since the
Revolution with a critical reading of the ICH device and its consequences in various
domains. While the article’s programmatic conclusion explicitly addresses the field of
ethnomusicology, these remarks can nonetheless be applied to all social sciences:
In any case, when it comes to heritage policies and their success, it is clear thatstudying them is now becoming an essential dimension of ethnomusicologicalanalysis. At stake here are: the representation of identity due to the increasednumber of levels involved (international, national, local and individual) and theirinterferences, the dialectics of safeguarding or revitalisation, the paradox of theemergence of a global discourse on the protection of cultural diversity, the effectsof heritagisation on the evolution of cultures, the changes that follow theirinstitutionalisation, their being proclaimed “universal”, the touristification and“spectacularisation” of these cultural phenomena suddenly pulled out of theshadows and placed in the international spotlight.23
Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage?
Transposition, 8 | 2019
4
10 Duly taking account of the entry into an era of generalised heritage and considering its
genealogy would therefore require a reorientation of the discipline on a par with the
issues at stake, which, while not necessarily beginning with ICH, do seem catalysed by
this process. Regarding the French domain, it is not surprising that this work comes
from an advocate of ethnomusicology informed by historic anthropology, who has long
played an important role in the French folk revival movement, notably with
institutions involved in documenting and promoting “traditional” music and dance.
Indeed, “intangible heritage” seems to be the latest avatar for the idea of “tradition”,
stepping in as the leading form of performative reference to the past, or more
specifically, way of—legitimately—connecting modern-day practices and objects with
those considered historical.24 If this assumption is tested in the field of music, revivals
appear as particularly relevant objects25: the essential link between the present-day
practice and “traditions”—and thus, increasingly, “heritage”—is constantly reasserted,
made explicit, argued and negotiated, breeding a diversity of practices ranging from
the most cosmopolitan to the most conservative.26
11 This is the shift proposed by multiple recent studies on the anthropology of heritage,
dealing with globalised musical practices generally articulated on the world music
scenes, and therefore separate from the local/global dichotomy discussed above.27 Let
us bear in mind that while the idea of “heritage” has become widespread in
musicological and ethnomusicological publications and events,28 and particularly
profuse in popular music studies,29 some question its epistemic or disciplinary status or
guard against it when it does not explicitly emerge from within the field.30
12 In terms of the current place of musical practices in the specific domain of “intangible
cultural heritage”, and vice versa, one observes that of the many studies on the issues
involved with the Convention and the ways in which inscriptions on the ICH lists are
affecting cultural practices, few have focused their analyses specifically on music.
However, in the 2011 collective book Le patrimoine culturel immatériel : enjeux d’une
nouvelle catégorie (Intangible Cultural Heritage: Issues with a New Category), a ground-
breaking reference on the subject, two of the four case studies presented deal with
musical practices and outline preliminary reflections on how this new paradigm
intersects with musical practices and denominations.31 In the first, Ignazio Macchiarella
questions the suitability of the ICH category for music, and—in line with the
protagonists of Sardinian canto a tenore—expresses reservations about considering
forms of musical expression that exist only “if there is someone in the flesh” like a
“disembodied passing on of sound”, i.e. “something intangible and immaterial.”32
Carlos Sandroni, on the other hand, examines how the project to safeguard samba de
roda has begun to affect the social dynamics within the practice groups. By creating a
community that has ended up out-of-sync with practitioners not involved in the
initiative—the “real” sambadores—the ICH nomination has led to new conflicts and
power dynamics between “bearers”, contrary to the project’s stated goals of fostering
community and cohesion.33
13 Following from these studies, various researchers have examined the transformations
brought about by the heritagisation and labelling of musical practices through ICH.
Some have closely examined the application processes for inscription on the UNESCO
ICH lists and the safeguarding programmes set up in light of the political, social and
aesthetic stakes involved.34 Others have demonstrated how this meeting of music and
ICH has given rise to emerging, hybrid forms of heritagisation, promotion,
Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage?
Transposition, 8 | 2019
5
museification, curating/exhibition and “spectacularisation” of music.35 Still others are
beginning to analyse the ways in which the performative practices, actors and
discourses are reorganising in order to absorb this new order.36 Nevertheless, analysing
the effects of this new heritage regime on music remains in the earliest stages, and this
emerging research is limited to specific case studies and geographical areas.
Consequently, there is not always dialogue between such studies, limiting the
possibilities for developing comprehensive theories on the interactions between music
and ICH.
14 This issue of Transposition seeks to contribute to this field of research through a
transnational, comparative approach to the relations between music and “intangible
heritage”. It brings together case studies and theoretical reflections on multiple
cultural areas, drawing on a variety of fields and disciplines. It follows from several
very recent studies in this regard, primarily in the English-speaking and Spanish-
speaking domains. Notably, since the release of our call for papers, the proceedings
from a conference held in London four years prior were published under the title Music
as Heritage: Historical and Ethnographic Perspectives (2018).37 This important contribution
works from the premise that the 2003 Convention is now a key reference in studies on
musical heritage, and examines this heritage model with regard to spheres of musical
activity outside the UNESCO scope. It explores the ways in which “musical cultures” are
affected by national and international heritage discourses and policies. It also deals
with the paradoxical issue of art music practices under threat of extinction and which
have received little attention. Published in 2018 in the journal TRANS, the dossier
Música y patrimonio cultural en América Latina addresses social, political and identity-
related issues around ICH in the context of Latin American music. The studies it
compiles convey the variety of heritagisation processes in Latin America, despite the
standardised nature of the safeguarding operations affiliated with ICH and UNESCO.38
Finally, the Oxford Handbook of Music Revival—which, as said above, examines revival
movements and the part they are playing in recomposing the world’s “musical
landscapes”—dedicated one of its eight sections to ICH and its music “safeguarding”
policies, as a major turning point in the contemporary world of traditional music.39
Musical intangible heritage challenged in the field
15 Following from these studies, this issue seeks to initiate collective reflection on the
singularity and complexity of the intersections between music and “intangible
heritage”, within the scope practiced by UNESCO and beyond.40 Looking closely at the
ways in which this notion (and/or the heritage apparatus that comes with it) is
implemented, reformulated or contested in the field, and at its points of contact and
friction with other categories and modes of action in use, the aim here is to consider:
what does ICH do to music and, conversely, what does music do to ICH?
16 This issue sits at the juncture of these two questions. It includes approaches from the
fields of anthropology, ethnomusicology, musicology, history and political science,
pertaining to regions of the world that each have their own manner of conceiving,
making and promoting music. The seven scientific articles in the thematic dossier,
based on case studies, are juxtaposed with three texts that broaden the perspective: an
interview of three actors in a heritagisation process; the presentation of a research
Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage?
Transposition, 8 | 2019
6
project of particular relevance to our concerns; and an essay on an artistic project that
revisits the issues addressed here.
17 Together, the texts present a variety of situations relating to the questions posed
above, but from their different vantage points, they all examine the relation between
music and ICH:
18 - Most of the cases studied correspond to practices inscribed on one of the UNESCO
lists, which are the subject of safeguarding programmes already in effect for some
years. This is the case for Andalusian flamenco and Portuguese fado (inscribed in 2010
and 2011), explored by Pedro Félix; Guadeloupean gwoka (2014), examined by par
Dominique Cyrille and Florabelle Spielmann, and by Pierre-Eugène Sitchet; Portuguese
cante alentejano (2014), studied by Maria do Rosário Pestana and Maria José Barriga; and
the Egyptian stick game taḥṭīb (2016), analysed by Séverine Gabry. In these examples,
the “inscription”41 process is underway—consummate, even—to the point that some
authors use terms such as “post-heritage context” or “post-inscription on the UNESCO
List” in assessing the variable repercussions. However, these articles reveal that the
debates, disagreements or hesitations prompted by applications persist once
inscription has been obtained, particularly when it comes to implementing the
safeguarding programmes. The examples of cante alentejano and gwoka illustrate well
the frictions and frustrations that come forth post-inscription, when certain musicians
and their aesthetics find themselves invisibilised by these programmes.
19 - Other authors explore the preparation of an inscription file, piercing straight to the
difficulties and potential consequences of an application endeavour and the
heritagisation of a musical practice. As opposed to situations in which ICH supports
heritagisation processes already firmly in motion and integrated into a local history,
the UNESCO application project for Catalan rumba, examined here by Arnauld
Chandivert and Hervé Parent, arises in a context where “safeguarding” the music was
not an issue. The initiative therefore raises new questions about the definition of rumba
and the gypsy community.
20 - Some practices are not candidates for the UNESCO lists but are engaged in local
heritagisation systems that use the designations and some of the tools and modalities
of action of ICH. This is the case for Brazil’s folia de reis, declared an element of
“intangible cultural heritage” by the Conselho Estadual do Patrimônio Cultural of the
state of Minas Gerais, in accordance with the federalised system of Brazilian
inventories. Here, community consultation, as prescribed by ICH, becomes a criterion
for the assessment of local policies by Lúcia Campos, who examines the question of
consent among folia practitioners, that is, their approval of the recognition and
safeguarding measures proposed by the institutions.
21 - Finally, some practices undertake separate initiatives or protest actions, while also
engaging in dialogue with ICH and/or UNESCO. In the case of Columbian champeta,
studied by Juan David Montoya Alzate, in protest of disregard for their music and to
draw the attention of public authorities, the “bearers”, represented by local
associations, ultimately start their own initiative to secure recognition of their music as
“intangible heritage”. In the case of Saharawi music analysed by Violeta Ruano Posada,
the inaccessibility of recognition via the UNESCO lists is due to a conflict situation
exacerbated by the lack of international recognition of the Saharawi Arab Democratic
Republic. Lastly, Rob Casey presents an example of alternative routes to musical
“heritagisation”, involving the creation of a fake audio-visual archive of the Irish
Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage?
Transposition, 8 | 2019
7
avant-garde. Here, it is the author himself who places his case study in dialogue with
the political and practical issues around ICH.
22 What then happens to music? The Egyptian stick game (taḥṭīb) represents a borderline
case insofar as meeting the UNESCO criteria comes hand in hand with the creation of
modern tahtib, a martial art in which music, reduced to percussion alone, is no more
than an occasional ornamentation. Whereas the file submitted to UNESCO clearly
specified the importance of music in taḥṭīb—Séverine Gabry emphasises its
“essential” role in the practice—ironically, it was made “intangible” in the utmost
sense when it was relegated to a historical note in a sports manual. However, this
elimination of music remains an exception, offset by the vivacity of music in the other
articles. The HeritaMus project presented by Pedro Félix, for example, conveys the
aesthetic and material benefit of a tool for collaborative management of ICH, which
among other things gives performers access to unpublished audio archives of fado and
flamenco, and thus to new repertoires and vocal styles. In the case of cante alentejano,
ensembles of young singers are emerging as a result of revitalisation actions. They are
introducing new styles within traditional practices, and in some cases, achieving
unprecedented exposure and performance opportunities, leading to professional
careers. Women are occupying spaces once reserved for men and renewing the social
dynamics and vocal registers in the polyphonies, revealing interesting intersections for
future studies, between the “ICH-isation” of music and gender issues.
23 New actors, new aesthetics, new scenes. Renewed repertoires, sonorities, poetics,
representations and founding stories. We see that far from being disconnected from the
everyday reality of musical practices, ICH processes affect them and are affected by
them, on different levels. It remains to be seen whether this has a homogenising effect
on practices—as feared by many specialists, and contrary to UNESCO’s stated aim of
promoting “cultural diversity” (although is it not true that a single phenomenon, such
as the inclusion of women, of minorities, can have multiple effects?)—or on the
contrary, has a diversifying effect on the apparatus, which could be oriented or even
instrumentalised according to the situations in which it is used.
24 This contiguousness between everyday musical practices and heritage practices can be
explained in large part by the participatory turn introduced by ICH; indeed, by
emphasising community involvement, it invites the practitioners themselves to take
part in these heritagisation endeavours. “We are the heritage!” proclaim the Alentejo
singers; “The collections are yours/for you”, respond the researchers.
25 Indeed, with ICH, researchers are also finding themselves in new roles, becoming the
designated mediators between practitioners and institutions. Indeed, most of the
contributing authors for this issue are directly involved in the same safeguarding
programmes they are analysing. Engaged as experts and facilitators in the elaboration
of projects and files (Cyrille and Spielmann, Parent and Chandivert), or involved in the
implementation of safeguarding and promotion actions (Ruano, Félix) or monitoring
post-inscription activities (Pestana and Barriga), they also orient the evolution of the
musical practices according to their own political or artistic agenda. For Parent and
Chandivert, for example, this is how their involvement with gypsy communities and
work on changing their (negative) image has led to an initiative aimed at obtaining
recognition of rumba and its “conversion” into ICH. In this sense, intangible cultural
heritage can be seen as a laboratory for action research, and researchers find
themselves analysing fields that they themselves have taken part in creating, renewing
Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage?
Transposition, 8 | 2019
8
the ethical, reflexive and critical questions at the core of the disciplines involved. This
is one of the questions raised by Violeta Ruano: “How could I develop a project to
advance the Saharawi political claims and, at the same time, do a constructive and
critical analysis of their musical situation?” By prompting the reinvention of
safeguarding resources for communities and tools for research, ICH can be a driving
force for scientific innovation, as the HeritaMus project defended by Pedro Félix tends
to show.
Ontologies, power dynamics, and fictions of musicheritage
26 The way in which this issue seeks to articulate the singularity of music within ICH can
be summed up in three recurring points42: the “intangibility” of music caught up in
these heritagisation processes; the specific intersections between music, power
dynamics and territory in this context; and lastly, the performative nature of the
heritage constructions at play, conceived as operative fictions.
27 “A mobile, traveling, powerful, sonorous temple. An intangible temple”: with this
striking oxymoron, Lúcia Campos attempts to encapsulate how “music and religion
structure each other” in folia de reis, and emphasises the inseparability, in the minds of
the foliões she studies, of “the people, practices, gestures, voices, verses, instruments,
clothing [and] specific places” that make up their folias. Is it relevant here to consider
whether some of these components of the musical experience are tangible and others,
intangible, and by virtue of what? Given the artificial nature of this dichotomy, the
answer is more likely no, yet this remains a probing point in a heritagisation process
that, according to the author, tends to impose the “criteria of the ‘music-object’” (of
cultural production) on what is primarily a “music-relation” (between the components
of a ritual). What Campos fears is that folias de reis turning into “ordinary music groups”
that attend “events”, perform on stage, produce albums, are commodified by a tourist
industry, etc., in short, into groups that play music like any other, would strip folia of
its deep ritual meaning—the best possible site for intangibility—along with facets of its
singularity, including elements that are “musical” in the strict sense.
28 Yet even when all the efforts are focused on absolutely tangible objects, as here in the
case of an instrument, the viola caipira; and even when heritagisation, as here, produces
effects as basic as decontextualising music; in reading the articles brought together in
this issue, the theoretical tangible-intangible dichotomy does not seem very useful in
analysing these effects, even musically speaking. The aim here is not to deny the vital
role of audio-visual and album recording technologies in the heritagisation processes in
question, which are catalysing new relations between the tangibility and intangibility
of musical experience; but while recordings do appear at key moments in multiple
articles, they seem to have been integrated into the musicians’ landscapes and
practices (with the exception of folia de reis) for long enough not to pose a problem (or
constitute a turning point) in ICH. On the contrary, because industrial forms of music
have long been integrated and due to the vast corpuses of records available,
discographies can be a rich resource for reconsidering, as the HeritaMus project does,
the variety of human and non-human actors making up the community of a heritagised
musical practice.
Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage?
Transposition, 8 | 2019
9
29 The second point involves rearticulating the intersection between music, power
dynamics and territory, as brought about by an international heritage device such as
ICH. The matter of recognising subaltern groups through the heritagisation of their
music is, in particular, central to several articles in this issue. This proves especially
critical in territorial struggles, as Ruano shows with regard to the Sahrawi Arab
Democratic Republic (SADR) in exile. In the face of non-recognition of its statehood in
the political arena, the SADR is asserting its cultural identity through the international
safeguarding of its music. Set up as heritage, music is becoming the emblem and
memory through which a nation is claiming its inscription in a territory. On another
level, the examples of Afro-Columbian champeta and Catalan rumba also show that the
heritagisation of a musical practice affirms “a legitimacy, and a right to be present in a
city”43 and more broadly, in a national community. Thus, ICH seems to be assuming its
role as a tool for social justice and the recognition of subaltern groups and practices,
put forward by UNESCO in its calls for the protection of “cultural diversity”. The “ICH
system” could then be utilised to offset a power considered to be oppressive: by
legitimising the musical practices with which excluded or dominated groups identify, it
provides a way of “working around the State”, as articulated by Spielmann and Cyrille.
30 But the system is a double-edged sword. While proclaiming communities’ self-
determination in defining and managing their heritage, UNESCO primarily liaises with
States, which maintain total control over the selection of nomination files. The debates
over the ICH inscription of gwoka are an eloquent illustration of this dynamic. As a
musical symbol of the struggle for independence, gwoka embodied a practice of
resistance against French hegemony. While those in support of inscription hoped to re-
establish Guadeloupe’s position in the international arena, the opponents feared that it
would reaffirm the island’s subordination to the French State. Indeed, once it has been
inscribed—that is to say, approved and legitimised—by the national authorities, what
remains of gwoka’s power as a form of protest? The ICH instrument—a weapon of
resistance or a tool for domination, depending on your vantage point—can thus be
wielded both ways politically, and seems to constantly shirk attempts to assign it a
defined role.
31 The third and final point is the performative and even fictional nature of heritage
constructions. Two surprising examples stand in contrast to the usual perspective on
heritagisation phenomena. The first is the performative act by the “bearers” of
champeta of declaring their music “the Intangible Cultural Heritage of the city of
Cartagena and the historic Calamarí territories” via a “public declaration of the
citizens”—see the article by Juan David Montoya. What makes this “declaration”
exceptional is that it was made without any legal or institutional basis for its validity,44
and yet, it has been effective. Not only has it had the effect of empowering champetúos,
by bringing exposure and legitimacy to their cause with this bottom-up action, but at
the same time it has sparked popular interest, triggered a public debate, attracted
media coverage and, above all, caught the attention of public authorities, demanding
“protection” of this highly stigmatised “oral tradition”. What this seems to indicate is
that, paradoxically, it is in fact outside the official channels that ICH may grant agency
to communities. This only reiterates the unifying and/or dissenting power that
musical, festive and performative practices provide for the groups that bear them—
particularly in contexts of exclusion, oppression and social struggle.
Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage?
Transposition, 8 | 2019
10
32 This theatrical twist throws into relief the declarative nature (in that it results from a
decision) of any heritagisation endeavour—contrary to a purist or naturalising
conception of ICH, which would only see it as an extension of everyday practices.45 It
reveals the mechanisms of power that separate the act of declaring (symbolic) from the
act of decreeing (effective). In a similar vein, it is against these bodies of power that the
“fictional archives” of the Irish avant-garde, invented by Jennifer Walshe and her
collaborators on the Aisteach project, attempt to resist—see the article by Rob Casey.
This hoax can be seen as a borderline case of Nathalie Heinich’s analyses of the
“making of cultural heritage” (fabrique du patrimoine), where she points out the
manufactured dimension of ICH (as with tangible and natural heritage) resulting from
operations of (re)configuration46; preceded by Eric Hobsbawm’s analyses of “invented
traditions”.47 Walshe, however, takes these theories of heritage constructions as an act
of invention a step further, making heritagisation a fiction, in the sense of a “possible
world”.48 As in the case of champeta, this operation is conceived not as impeding reality,
a purely symbolic act or fraud (a faking of authority), but as an operative fiction, with
strong practical impact, which by forming an hypothesis makes reality more
meaningful. The hypothesis is arrived at through a revision of the past—its collective
memory—inscribed in the present and oriented towards the future: what if this
experimental avant-garde music that remained “underground” had been recorded and
preserved? What heritage would it constitute for artists today? What impact would it
have had on creative practices? These fictional audio and visual archives do in fact
serve as the basis for Walshe’s performances, in that she cites them, plays them and
draws inspiration from them; thus, they too become performative. Here again,
performing a heritage becomes a political act, a demand for recognition and an act of
reparation, through the “restoration” of a forgotten musical universe.
33 Multiple questions around “post-heritage” phenomena remain unresolved here and
would merit further development in future research. Does music tend to dissipate in
these operations to inventory, pool and promote “intangible” cultural practices? Or
does music even tend to become a pretext for broader endeavours? If so, is this cause
for concern, in the name of a singularity of music, as presupposed here? Further
research on post-ICH issues would be needed to establish and record these
transformations, not only in terms of safeguarding measures but also in the weft of
musical, vocal and performative realities. Further studies could also, even more than
we have here, give voice to the musicians concerned and provide a platform for those
who find themselves invisibilised in processes that place value on certain “bearers”,
musical practices and sound material, necessarily excluding others. Finally, as
illustrated by the two texts on gwoka which offer complementary perspectives and a
polyphonic dialogue, new research could counterbalance the viewpoint of experts,
which is predominate in this issue and often conveys that of the “victors”. In short, we
hope that the articles compiled herein open new avenues for studies, projects and
critical discussions regarding these crucial issues in the field of music today.
Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage?
Transposition, 8 | 2019
11
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Música y patrimonio cultural en América Latina”, TRANS - Revista Transcultural de Música,
no. 21-22, 2018 (sibetrans.com/trans, consulté le 19 août 2019).
“Musiques à voir”, Cahiers de musiques traditionnelles, no. 16, 2003.
ADELL Nicolas, BENDIX Regina F., BORTOLOTTO Chiara and TAUSCHEK Markus (eds.), Between Imagined
Communities and Communities of Practice: Participation, Territory and the Making of Heritage,
Göttingen, Universitätsverlag Göttingen, 2015.
ADELL Nicolas et POURCHER Yves (dir.), Transmettre, quel(s) patrimoine(s) : autour du patrimoine culturel
immatériel, Paris, Michel Oudiard, 2011.
AMICO Marta, “La fabrique d’une musique touarègue : analyse comparée, du Sahara à la World
Music”, L’Homme, no. 227-228, 2018, p. 179-208.
AMICO Marta, “Labelliser le désert, recomposer le Mali, mixer les diversités du monde : un festival
à l’épreuve de la réconciliation”, Cahiers d’ethnomusicologie, no. 27, 2014, p. 189-202.
ATERIANUS-OWANGA Alice et SANTIAGO Jorge P. (dir.), Aux sons des mémoires : musiques, archives et
terrain, Lyon, Presses Universitaires de Lyon. 2016.
ATERIANUS-OWANGA Alice, “Un Janus à deux visages : patrimonialisations du religieux initiatique et
discours de la tradition dans les musiques ‘tradi-modernes’ du Gabon”, Autrepart, vol. 78-79, no. 2,
2016, p. 103-124.
AUCLAIR Elizabeth and FAIRCLOUGH Graham, Theory and Practice in Heritage and Sustainability: Between
Past and Future, London, Routledge, 2015.
AUSTIN John, How to Do Things with Words, Oxford, J.O. Urmson, 1962 (trad. fr. Quand dire, c’est faire,
Paris, Seuil, 1970).
BAKER Sarah, ISTVANDITY Lauren and NOWAK Raphaël, “The Sound of Music Heritage: Curating
Popular Music in Music Museums and Exhibitions”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, vol. 22,
no. 1, 2016.
BERLINER David et BORTOLOTTO Chiara, “Introduction : le monde selon l’Unesco”, Gradhiva, no. 18,
2013, p. 4-21.
BIGENHO Michelle, STOBART Henry y MÚJICA ANGULO Richard, “Del indigenismo al patrimonialismo:
una introduccion al dossier sobre musica y patrimonio cultural en América Latina”, TRANS -
Revista Transcultural de Musica, no. 21-22, 2018 (sibetrans.com/trans, consulté le 19 août 2019).
BONDAZ Julien, GRAEZER BIDEAU Florence, ISNART Cyril et LEBLON Anaïs, Les vocabulaires locaux du
“patrimoine” : traductions, négociations et transformations, Zurich/Berlin, Lit Verlag, 2014.
BONDAZ Julien, ISNART Cyril et LEBLON Anais (dir.), Civilisations, vol. 61, no. 1, “Au-delà du consensus
patrimonial : résistances et usages contestataires du patrimoine”, 2012.
BORTOLOTTO Chiara (dir.), Le patrimoine culturel immatériel : enjeux d’une nouvelle catégorie, Paris,
MSH, 2011.
BORTOLOTTO Chiara, “Les enjeux de l’institution du patrimoine culturel immatériel”, Culture et
48. See LAVOCAT Françoise, La théorie littéraire des mondes possibles, Paris, CNRS, 2010.
ABSTRACTS
Music holds a key place in the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) of humanity as inventoried by
UNESCO since its 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the ICH. More broadly, beyond the
United Nations, “intangible heritage” seems to have become the dominant paradigm in processes
of heritagisation and recognition of musical practices at the international level. Given the vast
scope of this phenomenon, the aim here is to initiate a transnational, comparative approach to
the relations between music and “intangible heritage”. Looking at the ways in which this notion
(and/or the heritage apparatus that comes with it) is implemented, reformulated or contested in
the field, and at its interactions with other categories and modes of action in use, this issue of
Transposition invites us to ask: what does ICH do to music and, conversely, what does music do to
ICH?
Most of the studies assembled here deal with practices inscribed on the UNESCO lists, which are
the subject of safeguarding programmes already in effect for some years. These “post-heritage”
situations are examined in their diversity. Other articles plunge us into the process of preparing
an ICH application, piercing straight to the difficulties and potential consequences of heritagising
a musical practice. Some practices covered here are not candidates for the UNESCO lists but are
engaged in local heritagisation systems that use the designations and some of the tools and
modalities of action of ICH. Finally, several articles give voice to heritagisation actions with a
separate approach or used as a form of protest.
The singularity of music within ICH can be summed up in three recurring points: the
“intangibility” of music caught up in these heritagisation processes; the specific intersections
between music, power dynamics and territory in this context, particularly in regard to subaltern
practices; and the performative nature of the heritage constructions at play, conceived as
operative fictions.
La musique occupe une place de choix au sein du Patrimoine Culturel Immatériel (PCI) de
l’humanité tel que le répertorie l’UNESCO depuis sa Convention de sauvegarde de 2003. Plus
largement, au-delà des Nations-Unies, le « patrimoine immatériel » semble être devenu le
paradigme dominant dans les actions de patrimonialisation et de valorisation des pratiques
musicales à l’échelle internationale. Devant l’ampleur de ce phénomène, il s’agit d’engager une
approche transnationale et comparative des rapports entre musique et « patrimoine
immatériel ». En s’intéressant aux façons dont cette notion (et/ou l’appareil patrimonial qui
l’accompagne) est mise en œuvre, reformulée ou contestée sur le terrain, et à ses interactions
avec d’autres catégories et modalités d’action en usage, ce numéro de Transposition propose donc
de se demander : que fait le PCI à la musique et, inversement, que fait la musique au PCI ?La majorité des études réunies ici s’intéressent à des pratiques inscrites sur les listes de
l’UNESCO, qui font l’objet de programmes de sauvegarde entamés depuis plusieurs années déjà.
Ces situations « post-patrimoniales » y sont examinées dans leur diversité. D’autres articles nous
plongent dans le vif du montage d’un dossier d’inscription, et s’interrogent sur les difficultés et
les possibles conséquences de la mise en patrimoine d’une pratique musicale. Certaines des
pratiques étudiées ne sont pas candidates auprès de l’UNESCO, mais sont inscrites dans des
régimes de patrimonialisation locaux qui reprennent les désignations et certains modes d’action
Introduction. Music: Intangible Heritage?
Transposition, 8 | 2019
20
et outils afférents au PCI. Enfin, la voix est donnée à des actions de patrimonialisation distinctes
ou contestataires.
La singularité de la musique au sein du PCI s’esquisse alors sur trois axes principaux : celui de
l’« immatérialité » de la musique prise dans ces processus de patrimonialisation ; celui des
rapports spécifiques qui s’y articulent entre musique, politique et territoire, notamment au
regard de pratiques subalternes ; enfin, celui du caractère performatif des constructions
patrimoniales en jeu, saisies comme des fictions opératoires.